I question things which people take for granted. I would have been that kid who said the emperor was naked. In real life that kid would probably have been lynched, but I'll take my chances...
I believe truth inherently valuable, no matter how well intentioned the ideology it dispels may be.
I also write about random interesting things from my personal life.

03 March 2014

By far the most destructive invasive species to North America has been the Western European Homo Sapiens.
Introduced between 1500 and 1600 by Spanish, German, and English
settlers, this large hominid almost entirely eradicated the native breed
of their own specie throughout the continent, and then went on to do
absolutely massive destruction to nearly every aspect of the landscape
with their natural instinct to modify their surroundings, ultimately
affecting literally every ecological niche extending not only across the
land but even well into the oceans on both coasts.

In order to restore the damage done by their introduction, a two part
strategy may be most effective: a massive catch, spay/neuter and release
program coupled with relaxed or even eliminated hunting restrictions.
This may take lots of time, but would surely be more cost effective and
humane in the long run, compared with any attempt to directly euthanize
the entire population.

4 comments:

Wow, you are a racist ass. Why don't you mention the Incas and Mayans while you're at it and their murdering thousands of fellow American Indians by human sacrifice and their empires' depletion of environmental resources?

How is it racist? There is no moral judgement here, no prejudice against any particular individual. I'm using the language biologists use.

It is factually accurate. The Incas and Mayans had extremely little environmental impact, and the lasting impact is exactly zero. I said nothing what-so-ever about murder or any other of what humans may consider atrocities. I'm only talking about environmental impact. Your question is like asking why Zebra mussels are called "invasive" but pearly mussels aren't.Are marine biologists prejudiced against Zebra mussels?

Would it be racist to acknowledge that it was almost entirely people of european origin who enslaved people of african origin in the US, and not the other way around? Is it racist to point out that today black people commit more violent crime per capita than white people do? These are just historical and statistical facts.

Further, I'm using the term "invasive" the same way biologists tend to - which is of course a bit nebulous, since species sometimes find ways into new ecosystems without the help of human transportation (wind, currents, shifting continents). And that's another thing to think about - how many centuries back must a specie have migrated into a particular ecosystem to be considered "native"?

It is not racist to acknowledge historical facts. The historical fact is that you can find every people in the world enslaving another at some point in history, even the victims themselves. Often the enslaved were of the same ethnic group as the enslavers. This happened everywhere. In same places, still happens today.

The problem with language as you used it is that it presents a one-sided view of slavery on a global scale. It suggests that only whites have ever done bad things. This is not true. If you look at the global scale, every single person on Earth has ancestors who were slaves and who enslaved others. Slavery was the way to acquire additional work-output before technology was invented to move work-output to machines. That doesn't make it right, but it does explain why slavery was found in virtually every culture. The trouble is, no one wants to acknowledge that "people-of-color" (white is not a color?) ever made people into slaves. The reason is that they are constructing a system of acquiring power based on a somewhat false narrative. Anything that contradicts this narrative, makes it difficult to acquire power. Playing the victim is a great way to acquire power these days.

The reason why your language was racist was because we are talking about sentient beings. Human beings. When it comes right down to it, there is no functional difference between any of us. But language such as you used removes the human spark from the discussion. It encourages people to see other human beings as nothing more than bugs or insects. Mere clinical descriptions. That's dangerous and it isn't accurate, either. And when applied to any group - black, brown, white, etc, it is racist in effect, if not in intent.

I don't understand why you are talking about slavery. There is literally nothing in this about slavery.

An invasive specie displaces native populations. The native population in the America was the aboriginal ("Indian") American.

Everything you are saying about the false narrative of victimization I completely agree with, and I have written about it quite a bit (see "Cops Shooting Unarmed Black Men" and "Race and Culture and not Interchangeable").However it is totally irrelevant to this post.